Cycling is a popular activity in many countries around the world and a thriving cycling industry may have developed over many years to address the needs of cycling enthusiasts. Among these needs may be the desire to improve rider comfort, efficiency, and safety on a bicycle. For example, a bicycle in motion may produce a variety of stresses tending to reduce rider comfort. Such stresses may come from a number of sources, including perhaps from shock and vibration caused by the bicycle moving over a surface, or perhaps from resistance and hard points created where the rider's body interfaces with rigid bicycle components such as a seat, handlebar, or the like. Similarly, there may exist a desire to increase the efficiency by which rider motion is translated to the bicycle. For example, such efficiency may be affected by how efficiently the rider is able to work bicycle components, such as in cranking the pedals, gripping the handlebars, and the like. In addition, wear and fatigue on bicycle components over time may pose a safety risk to bicycle riders.
While such comfort, efficiency, and safety may be addressed at a variety of locations on a bicycle, one approach may have been to examine the nature in which a bicycle component may be mounted to a bicycle. For example, bicycle components such as seats, handlebars, and the like typically may not be manufactured as integrated with a bicycle frame, but rather more usually may be manufactured separately and mounted to the bicycle frame utilizing some kind of bicycle component mount. Traditionally, such bicycle component mounts may take the form of rigid connections, such as clamps, bolts, casings, and the like. For example, bicycle seats perhaps may be conventionally mounted by clamping a seat rail to a bicycle seat post which is in turn fitted to the bicycle frame. Similarly, handlebars perhaps may be conventionally mounted by attaching the handlebar through a rigid clamp. Of course, these examples are merely illustrative of the variety of components that may be mounted on bicycles via rigid connections.
Such conventional mounting techniques, however, may not be optimal for promoting rider comfort, efficiency, and safety as discussed above. In particular, the rigid nature of these connections may be seen to permit perhaps relatively unimpeded transfer of stresses to and from different parts of the bicycle. For example, shock and vibration from a surface over which the bicycle is moving may be readily transmitted through these rigid connections to a bicycle seat, handlebar, or the like, perhaps ultimately being absorbed by the body of the rider. Similarly, these rigid connections may not provide any flex in response to rider motion—for example when a seat is twisted from cranking a pedal or a handlebar is worked from a hand grip—perhaps resulting in the inefficient translation of rider motion to the bicycle. Moreover, rigid connections may be susceptible to wear and fatigue as bicycle components are worked over time. Accordingly, the cycling industry may have responded over time with various alternative configurations for bicycle component mounts.
However, many of these alternative configurations perhaps simply may not truly eliminate the rigid nature of the connection established through a bicycle component mount. While these designs may incorporate various kinds of force mitigating devices, such as perhaps springs, air cushions, elastomers, gels, and the like, nevertheless close examination of the design may reveal a rigid path still existing through which forces generated by the stresses described may readily travel, perhaps still ultimately resulting in rider discomfort. In addition, wear and fatigue may still be an issue at such rigid paths. Moreover, these force mitigating devices often may not be placed at the bicycle component mount itself, for example as where a spring may be placed within a bicycle seat post or an air cushion placed underneath a saddle of a bicycle seat. In such arrangements, the flex permitted by the device may not be at the mount itself, which may result in less than optimal efficiency in response to rider motion. In fact, the actual bicycle component mount in such designs frequently may be simply a conventional mount of the type already described.
Additionally, many of these alternative configurations perhaps may be relatively heavy, complicated, or occupy an inordinate amount of space on a bicycle frame. These considerations of course may be more than merely trivial. For example, modern bicycle construction may tend to emphasize lightweight and space-efficient design, particularly for professionals, serious amateurs, or competition cycling. Moreover, complicated designs perhaps may be prone to more difficult maintenance or easier breakage.
As a result, the alternative configurations discussed may have failed to produce a bicycle component mount that truly isolates the bicycle component from a rigid connection to the body of the bicycle, and that permits rider-responsive multidimensional motion of the bicycle component mount about its own structure. Accordingly, the foregoing problems regarding conventional bicycle component mounting technologies may represent a long-felt need for an effective solution to the same. While implementing elements may have been available, actual attempts to meet this need to the degree now accomplished may have been lacking to some degree. This may have been due to a failure of those having ordinary skill in the art to fully appreciate or understand the nature of the problems and challenges involved. As a result of this lack of understanding, attempts to meet these long-felt needs may have failed to effectively solve one or more of the problems or challenges here identified. These attempts may even have led away from the technical directions taken by the present inventive technology and may even result in the achievements of the present inventive technology being considered to some degree an unexpected result of the approach taken by some in the field.